Commons talk:Freedom of panorama

‎Where in the Belgium legislation does it restrict photographs of buildings: new section
← Older revision
Revision as of 03:50, 22 March 2013
Line 192:
Line 192:
 
(3) In cases stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship of the work must be indicated, if the latter is indicated on the work used. }}
 
(3) In cases stated in paragraph (1) of this Article, the source and authorship of the work must be indicated, if the latter is indicated on the work used. }}
 
To me that clearly indicates that FoP is allowable in 2-D representation of 3-D, ie. you can take photographs, when you are doing such in a public space. I believe that we should be changing our interpretation unless there is case law to the contrary.  — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]'' 03:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 
To me that clearly indicates that FoP is allowable in 2-D representation of 3-D, ie. you can take photographs, when you are doing such in a public space. I believe that we should be changing our interpretation unless there is case law to the contrary.  — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]'' 03:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
 
+

 
+
== Where in the Belgium legislation does it restrict photographs of buildings ==
 
+

 
+
Excuse my wikilawyering, however, I have just scanned the WIPO legislation for Belgium, and I am wondering how and where we decided that photographs of buildings are not allowable. The English translation [http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=125254] has the following opening sections ...
 
+
{{cquote|1=
 
+
Section 1: Copyright in General ..........................................................................1–7

 
+
Section 2: Special Provisions on Literary Works ....................................................8

 
+
Section 3: Special Provisions on Works of Fine Art .........................................9–13

 
+
Section 4: Special Provisions on Audiovisual Works......................................14–20}}
 
+
Buildings will not fall into sections 2 to 4, and definitely not in subsequent sections of the law. There is no evident part of section one that can relate to a constructed building.
 
+
* Article 1 — The author of a literary or artistic work alone shall have the right to reproduce his work or to have it reproduced in any manner or form whatsoever ...
 
+
* Article 2 — The author of a literary or artistic work shall enjoy an inalienable moral right in his work...
 
+
* Article 3 — The economic rights shall be movable, assignable and transferable ...
 
+
* Article 4 — Where copyright is indivisible, exercise of the right shall be governed by agreement ...
 
+
* Article 5 — In the case of a work of collaboration ...
 
+
* Article 6 — Copyright shall belong as of origin to the natural person ...
 
+
* Article 7 — After the death of the author ...
 
+

 
+
None of those copyright in general areas go near buildings. If we are going to try and uphold and point to a restricting legislative process, then we need to be able to clearly show the section of the legislation that we would breach, and here we have not. Someone clearly needs to demonstrate how the Belgium copyright laws impact Freedom of Panorama, at this stage we have done a pretty poor interpretative approach. Again, is there case law to which we can point?  — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]'' 03:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama&diff=93065357&oldid=93064316